See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241701225

Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to examine generational differences in

work attitudes

Article in Career Development International · June 2009

DOI: 10.1108/13620430910966442

CITATIONS READS
274 4,617

4 authors, including:

Sherry Sullivan Monica L. Forret

Bowling Green State University Saint Ambrose University
119 PUBLICATIONS 8,144 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 2,839 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shawn M. Carraher
Harvard University
134 PUBLICATIONS 3,321 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sherry Sullivan on 21 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fairfield University
DigitalCommons@Fairfield
Business Faculty Publications Charles F. Dolan School of Business

1-1-2009

Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to Examine

Generational Differences in Work Attitudes
Sherry E. Sullivan

Monica L. Forret

Shawn M. Carraher

Lisa A. Mainiero
Fairfield University, lmainiero@fairfield.edu

Copyright 2009 Emerald Publishing

Peer Reviewed

Repository Citation
Sullivan, Sherry E.; Forret, Monica L.; Carraher, Shawn M.; and Mainiero, Lisa A., "Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to Examine
Generational Differences in Work Attitudes" (2009). Business Faculty Publications. Paper 62.
http://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/business-facultypubs/62

Published Citation
Sullivan, S.E., Forret, M.L., Carraher, S.M., Mainiero, L.A. 2009. “Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to Examine Generational
Differences in Work Attitudes". Career Development International, 14(3), 284-302.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Charles F. Dolan School of Business at DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Business Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. For more information, please contact
digitalcommons@fairfield.edu.
Using the kaleidoscope career model to
examine generational differences in work
attitudes
The Authors

Sherry E. Sullivan, Department of Management, College of Business, Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA

Monica L. Forret, Department of Managerial Studies, College of Business, St Ambrose

University, Davenport, Iowa, USA

Shawn M. Carraher, School of Business, Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahoma, USA

Lisa A. Mainiero, Department of Management, Charles F. Dolan School of Business,

Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2009 Southwest Academy of Management
Conference and received the McGraw-Hill/Irwin Distinguished Paper Award. The authors also
thank Matt Quigley for his comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine, utilising the Kaleidoscope Career Model,
whether members of the Baby Boom generation and Generation X differ in their needs for
authenticity, balance, and challenge.

Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were obtained from 982 professionals located

across the USA. Correlations, t-tests, and multiple regressions were performed to test the
hypotheses.

Findings – Members of Generation X have higher needs for authenticity and balance than Baby
Boomers. There was no difference in needs for challenge between Baby Boomers and members
of Generation X.

Research limitations/implications – A limitation in the study, as well as in most of the research

on generational differences, is the use of cross-sectional designs that fail to capture the influence
of the aging process. A longitudinal, multi-survey design over the lives of individuals would
enable scholars to capture within- and between-person differences and to permit a better
understanding of whether differences are in fact due to generational effects or to aging.
Practical implications – Knowledge of the differences and similarities among the various
generations in the workforce can help organizational leaders make important decisions about
human resource policies and practices.

Originality/value – Many studies in the popular press stress the prevalence and importance of
generational differences in the workplace. However, the little academic research that has been
conducted has shown mixed results. The study uses the theoretical framework of the
Kaleidoscope Career Model to examine generational differences in work attitudes.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Careers; Baby boomer generation; Career development.

Journal:

Career Development International

Volume:

14

Number:

Year:

2009

pp:

284-302

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1362-0436
Much has been written in the popular press about the clash between Baby Boomers (hereinafter
Boomers) and members of Generation X (hereinafter Xers). For instance, Business Week has
featured stories such as “The reasons why Gen Xers are unhappy at work,” which suggests that
Boomer managers do not understand what motivates their Xer employees (Erickson, 2005).
Fortune has reported on how Xers feel they cannot get ahead because of the “grey ceiling”
created by Boomers who will not retire (Fisher and Bonamici, 2006). Time magazine featured a
cover story about Xers that lamented “they just won't grow up” (Grossman, L., 2005) while also
illustrating that the generation gap is not just a western phenomenon with its story on “China's
me generation” (Simon, 2007). Similar reports of how the generation gap between Boomers and
Xers have caused increased workplace conflict have been offered by the Society for Human
Resource Management (2004), news organizations such as ABC (Johnson, 2007a, b), and
numerous popular press books such as When Generations Collide (Lancaster and Stillman,
2002), Boomers, Xers and Other Strangers (Hicks and Hicks, 1999), and Motivating the “What's
In It For Me” Workforce (Marston, 2007).

While the popular press has devoted considerable attention to how the interaction of members
from these different generations may have important implications for contemporary workplace
dynamics and practices (e.g. Gravett and Throckmorton, 2007; Salkowitz, 2008; Zemke et al.,
2000), relatively little academic research has been completed on the topic. The research that has
been completed has produced conflicting findings, resulting in a lack of consensus about whether
generational differences really do impact work attitudes and behaviors. This lack of consensus is
cause for concern given the growing number of practitioner articles and books that encourage
managers to lead and motivate members of various generations much differently.

The purpose of this empirical study is to examine potential differences in the career needs of
Boomers and Xers, the two generations that dominate today's western workplace. It has been
suggested that the root of the conflicts between Boomers and Xers is that these two generations
differ in their attitudes toward work-non-work balance, the desire for challenging work, and
differences in the meaning of work (e.g. Callanan and Greenhaus, 2008; Hankin, 2004). These
differences can be summarized by the description of Boomers as “living to work” and Xers as
“working to live.” While Boomers are often viewed as workaholics who thrive on increasing
work challenge, Xers are seen as placing a higher value on balance to the point of being
perceived as slackers. Likewise, Xers are perceived to be more interested in doing work that
expresses their personal values than are Boomers, who are perceived to be more interested in
material success (e.g. Hankin, 2004). This empirical study addresses whether there are real
differences between Boomers and Xers in their desire for authenticity (i.e. need to be genuine),
balance, and challenge.

This study also answers Callanan and Greenhaus' (2008) recent “call to action” and their
argument that studying generational differences is vital because of the potential implications for
organizational human resource planning as well as for individuals enacting their careers. Further,
although studies that examine a single generation contribute to the knowledge base by providing
detailed insights into that particular group and provide a rich foundation for future research
(Broadbridge et al., 2007; Feyerherm and Vick, 2005; McDonald and Hite, 2008; Terjesen et al.,
2007), this study takes the next step in the research process. In this study, we used a theory-base
coupled with a large, national sample to directly compare two different generations within the
same study. The findings of this study also suggest implications for organizational leaders who
are trying to develop human resource management strategies to attract and retain quality
employees from different generations. Managers who have an enhanced understanding of
generational differences should be better able to motivate employees of diverse generations
resulting in higher productivity and job satisfaction.

We begin by reviewing the social science research on the characteristics of the four major
generations of the twentieth century. Next, we review the studies from the organizational
sciences which have examined generational differences in the workplace.

Then we provide a brief summary of the Kaleidoscope Career Model (Mainiero and Sullivan,
2005, 2006) and use the model as a framework to propose hypotheses about generational
differences and career needs. After a discussion of methods and a presentation of the results, we
detail the implications of these findings for future research and practice.

Research on differing generational characteristics

Over the past 50 years, the examination of generations has been of interest to many different
scientific fields including economics, demography, political science, clinical psychology and
sociology (Alwin and McCammon, 2007; Biggs, 2007). It is widely held in these fields that
certain revolutionary historical events become crystallizing experiences for individuals of shared
birth years which bond them together and greatly influence their critical developmental years.
These common events shape a generation, influencing members' attitudes and behaviors as this
group “travels together through time.” Moreover, individuals who share birth years identify with
each other as in-group members while others outside of the group recognize them as a distinct
generation. Thus, individuals from a respective generation can be differentiated from members of
other generations not only by shared birth years but also by the unique social and historical
experiences of the members' youths which permanently influenced their characteristics. The four
major generations of the twentieth century that have been studied are:

1. the Greatest Generation, born between 1922 and 1945;

2. Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964;
3. Xers, born between 1965 and 1983; and
4. Generation Y (hereinafter Yers), born between 1984 and 2002 (Alwin and McCammon,
2007; Biggs, 2007; Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000).

Members of the Greatest Generation share common values based on the key life experiences of
the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, and the Second World War. The Greatest Generation is also
called the Silent Generation because they take what life throws at them and remain stoic without
complaining about their circumstances. They are self-disciplined, believe in self-sacrifice, and
value hard work. They are bound by a strong set of ethical principles that makes them extremely
loyal employees. They believe in traditional values and enact traditional gender roles – the
husband as breadwinner and the wife as homemaker (Hankin, 2004).

After living through the Great Depression, the Greatest Generation labored to ensure that their
Boomer children never wanted for anything and had ample opportunities for a better life. These
Greatest Generation parents preached the American Dream and instilled Boomers with the belief
that hard work and effort would lead to success. Thus, Boomers value extrinsic measures of
career success and are willing to work long hours to obtain rewards. Witnessing the Women's
Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and the moon landing, Boomers appreciate the value of
working well in teams to achieve goals. Boomers also witnessed great national tragedies
including the assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Disillusioned
by the Vietnam War, Watergate and the resignation of President Nixon, Boomers developed a
distrust of authority and place a high value on independent thinking (Callanan and Greenhaus,
2008; Hankin, 2004).

Unlike the Boomers who seem to live to work, it is said that Xers work to live. Xers were greatly
influenced by the financial, family and societal insecurities that dominated their childhoods. The
downsizing of their Boomer parents in the 1980s and 1990s caused Xers to be distrustful of
organizations. Many also experienced the insecurity of being a latchkey child or the child of a
single parent as both the number of dual career couples and divorce rates rose. Between the
uncertainties of their home lives and the uncertainties of the world, including the destruction of
the Berlin Wall and the Challenger disaster, they lack solid traditions but are accustomed to rapid
change. They are highly mobile; they are more loyal to work groups and bosses than firms. They
dislike hierarchy, believe rewards should be based on merit as opposed to seniority, prefer to
work alone, and prefer informal work arrangements. Xers have also been dubbed the “Slacker
Generation” because they place a lesser emphasis on work as an important part of their lives,
especially in comparison to their Boomer parents (Hankin, 2004; McDonald and Hite, 2008).

While the details of the Greatest Generation, Boomers, and Xers are fairly well developed, the
characteristics of the newest members of the workforce, Yers, are less clear. The confusion over
how to best describe this generation is illustrated by the number of monikers that have been used
to label them, including:

• Generation Why;
• the Millennial Generation;
• the MySpace Generation;
• the Nexters;
• the Internet Generation; and
• the Greater Generation.

The early lives of this generation have been influenced by historical events such as 9/11, the Iraq
War, and the O.J. Simpson Trial. Yers cannot remember a time when they were not connected
24/7. They are considered to be the most technologically adept members of the workforce. Their
reliance on fast-paced technology; however, often makes them seem impatient (Hankin, 2004;
Terjesen et al., 2007).

For the first time in modern history, members from four generations are in the workforce. In
2007, approximately 9 per cent of the workforce were members of the Greatest Generation, 32
per cent were Boomers, 45 per cent were Xers, and 14 per cent were Yers (US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2008). Although over the last five decades scholars have examined generational
conflicts at both the micro level, such as between parents of one generation and children of
another, and at the macro level, such as generational clashes over social and economic issues
including social security and health care policies (Alwin and McCammon, 2007; Biggs, 2007),
organizational scholars have just begun to study how generational differences may impact the
workplace (e.g. Smola and Sutton, 2002). In the next section we discuss the relatively limited
academic research that has been completed on generational differences in the work environment.

Research on generational differences in the workplace

In one of the first, large scale studies (n=335) to examine generational differences in
organizations, Smola and Sutton (2002) compared the work values of Boomers and Xers. Of the
twenty significance tests completed, only three resulted in significant generational differences. In
line with the idea that Boomers work to live whereas Xers live to work, Boomers were
significantly more likely to agree that work should be one of the most important parts of a
person's life. Similarly, supporting the idea that Xers favor merit over seniority for performance
decisions, Xers were significantly more likely to desire to be promoted quickly. Contrary to the
belief that Xers are slackers, Xers were significantly more likely to agree that working hard
makes one a better person. Most surprising, however, was the lack of significant generational
differences Smola and Sutton (2002) found on most work values, including: being of service to
others, feeling more worthwhile for working hard, enjoying work, feeling a sense of pride in
one's work, being respected for one's work, getting more money, getting more fringe benefits,
being complimented by one's supervisor, and having leisure and free time.

Similar to Smola and Sutton, other organizational researchers have found relatively few of the
generational differences suggested by previous research (e.g. Biggs, 2007). Of the nine work
outcomes examined by Davis et al. (2006) only three (job involvement, normative organization
commitment, and continuance professional commitment) were statistically significant, but just
one relationship was in the expected direction. While continuance professional commitment was
significantly higher for Boomers than Xers as predicted, contrary to expectations, job
involvement and normative organization commitment were significantly higher for Xers. There
were no generational differences on factors including work involvement, work group attachment,
affective organization commitment, continuance organization commitment, affective
professional commitment, and normative professional commitment.

Likewise, Gentry et al. (2009) reported no significant generational differences in Boomers' and
Xers' attitudes about learning and development. Despite suggestions that Xers are more protean
(Hall, 1976, 1996, 2004) in their beliefs about learning and taking responsibility for their own
career development, there were no significant differences between Xers and Boomers in beliefs
about the importance of on-the-job learning as well as the belief that their firms develop them as
employees. Although it would be expected that Xers would be more likely to intend to engage in
developmental learning within the next year, only three of the 29 comparisons about plans to
engage in developmental initiatives (e.g. learning another language, development of leadership
skills) showed significant generational differences. As to preferences for the use of different
developmental techniques (e.g. classroom instruction, web-based training, on-the-job training)
for learning soft and hard skills, only six of the 30 comparisons made were significantly
different. Overall, their findings suggest few generational differences in attitudes toward
learning.
Sirias et al. (2007) reported mixed results in their study of generational differences and
individualism/collectivism. They found that Xers had significantly higher scores on self-reliance,
competitiveness and solitary work preferences than Boomers. There were no significant
differences between Xers and Boomers on their willingness to sacrifice personal pursuits for the
good of the team or in the supremacy of group goals over self-interests (see also Karp et al.,
2002).

Using the framework of person-environment fit, Westerman and Yamamura (2007) also reported
mixed results. They reported that when Xers and Yers perceived a good fit between their goals
and organizational goals, they were significantly more likely to intend to remain with the firm
and were more satisfied. However, goal fit had no effect on the satisfaction and intention to
remain of Boomers. Relationship fit (e.g. social interaction and work friendships) had a
significant effect on the satisfaction of Boomers but had no effect on Boomers' intent to remain.
Relationship fit had no influence on intent to remain or satisfaction of Xers or Yers. Because
Westerman and Yamamura combined Xers and Yers into one group, differences between these
two generations were not considered.

In contrast with much of the previous survey research, Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008) using
archival data from 1997 (n=3,552) and 2002 (n=3,504), found significant differences among
Matures (i.e. Greatest Generation), Boomers, and Xers in attitudes toward work interfering with
family and family interfering with work. There were significant generational differences in
work-family synergy for the 1997 sample but not for the 2002 sample. For each generation, job
pressures and mental health were the strongest predictors of both types of work-family conflict.
Overall, Matures were significantly more satisfied than Boomers and Xers, with Xers being
especially concerned about issues of balance.

Unlike most of the studies on generational differences in organizations which used surveys and
tended to report mixed results or relatively few differences (see Beutell and Wittig-Berman,
2008, for an exception), Gursoy et al. (2008) used focus groups (n=36 Boomers and 38 Xers)
and found consistent generational differences in worldviews. Supporting previous research on
generational characteristics, Gursoy et al. (2008) reported that Boomers:

• live to work;
• respect authority and hierarchy; and
• enjoy being in charge.

In contrast, Xers:

• work to live;
• desire instant gratification; and
• are self-reliant.

Like Gursoy et al. (2008), Jovic et al. (2006) used a qualitative approach (i.e. interviews with 34
Boomers and 18 Xers) but also collected quantitative data (i.e. surveys of 87 Boomers and 65
Xers) to examine the work attitudes and behaviors of physicians. Analysis of the interviews
suggested that Boomers generally perceived Xers to be less committed to their careers. Boomers
thought Xers worked fewer hours, worked less hard, and placed a greater emphasis on work-
family balance. Interestingly, while the qualitative data suggested clear generational differences,
analysis of the survey data found few significant differences. The quantitative analysis found no
significant generational differences in working hours and positive attitudes toward patient care.
Likewise, both generations reported similar amounts of balance, that work demands interfered
with their family life, and that they lacked time to do the things they wished. The one significant
difference between the two generations was that Boomers were more likely to report that their
family responsibilities interfered with their work. This study is especially interesting in that most
of the Boomers' perceptions of their Gen X colleagues did not match the self-reported attitudes
and behaviors of the Gen Xers. These findings suggest that generational clashes may be due, at
least in part, to perceptions of differences rather than actual differences between the generations.

Overall, relatively little research has been completed on how generational differences may
impact work attitudes and behaviors. Examining the eight major studies that have been published
highlights the lack of consensus among organizational scholars about generational differences in
the work environment. Because of this lack of agreement, scholars are unable to provide clear
recommendations to organizational leaders on how to best manage the increasingly diverse
workforce. To advance the research on generational differences, we utilize the Kaleidoscope
Career Model (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006) to provide a theoretical framework for our
examination of generational differences in workplace attitudes. The next section provides a
description of this model and suggests hypotheses regarding generational differences in the needs
for authenticity, balance, and challenge.

The Kaleidoscope Career Model

The Kaleidoscope Career Model (KCM) is a relatively new career theory that was based on the
results of five different studies (interviews, focus groups, and three surveys) of over 3,000 US
professional workers (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006; Sullivan et al., 2007). Like a kaleidoscope
that produces changing patterns when the tube is rotated and its glass chips fall into new
arrangements, the KCM describes how individuals change the patterns of their careers by
rotating the varied aspects of their lives in order to arrange their relationships and roles in new
ways. Individuals evaluate the choices and options available through the lens of the kaleidoscope
to determine the best fit among work demands, constraints, and opportunities as well as
relationships and personal values and interests. As one decision is made, it affects the outcome of
the kaleidoscope career pattern.

Just as a kaleidoscope uses three mirrors to create infinite patterns, individuals focus on three
parameters when making decisions, thus creating the kaleidoscope pattern of their career. These
parameters are:

1. Authenticity. Whereby the individual's internal values are aligned with his/her external
behaviors and the values of the employing organization.
2. Balance. Whereby the individual strives to reach an equilibrium between work and non-
work (e.g. family, friends, elderly relatives, personal interests) demands.
3. Challenge. Which is an individual's need for stimulating work (e.g. responsibility,
autonomy) as well as career advancement.
These three parameters are simultaneously active over the life span with the strength of a
parameter to shape a career decision or transition depending upon what is going on in that
individual's life at that particular time. Over the course of the life span, as a person searches for
the best fit that matches the character and context of his/her life, the kaleidoscope's parameters
shift in response, with one parameter moving to the foreground and intensifying as that
parameter takes priority at that time. The other two parameters lessen in intensity and recede to
the background, but are still present and active as all aspects are necessary to create the current
pattern of an individual's life/career. Although relatively new, research has supported the basic
tenets of the KCM (Cabrera, 2007, in press; Godshalk et al., 2007; Smith-Ruig, 2009).

We framed this study using the non-traditional career model of the KCM as the theory base to
examine the career values of Boomers and Xers. We suggest there may be generational
differences in the career parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge. Specifically, Xers,
who have been characterized as “working to live” (Gursoy et al., 2008) and being more focused
on non-work issues (Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008), are expected to exhibit a higher desire
for balance than the workaholic Boomers. Likewise, Xers are more likely to exhibit a greater
desire for authenticity than the Boomers. It has been suggested that Xers want more meaningful
work that permits them to express their values (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007) whereas
Boomers are more interested in extrinsic rewards (e.g. Callanan and Greenhaus, 2008; Hankin,
2004). In contrast, it is anticipated that Boomers, who have been characterized as “living to
work” and who consider work one of the most important aspects of their lives (Smola and
Sutton, 2002), will have a greater desire for challenge than Xers, who have also been called the
generation of slackers. Using the KCM as our theoretical foundation, we propose the following
hypotheses:

H1. Compared to Boomers, Xers will report a greater desire for authenticity.

H2. Compared to Boomers, Xers will report a greater desire for balance.

H3. Compared Xers, Boomers will report a greater desire for challenge.

Method

Sample

In order to collect information from a large sample that was composed of individuals from many
different organizations and professions, we chose a web-based approach. We posted our survey
on the site of one of the largest established research panels in the USA. Recent research has
found that web-based samples compare favorably to traditional survey methods used in
psychology. For example, Gosling et al. (2004) reported that internet samples were more
representative than traditional pencil-and-paper samples with respect to gender, socioeconomic
status, geographic location, and age, and were about as representative as traditional samples with
regard to race. Other researchers (e.g. Berrens et al., 2003; Li et al., 2004) have found internet
samples to be comparable to large-scale telephone samples in terms of representing the general
population.
A total of 982 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 20 per cent. Individuals ranged in age
from 25 to 70. There were no members of Generation Y in the sample. Because of the relatively
small number of Greatest Generation members who responded (n=74), we chose to focus on
differences between the Boomers and Xers for a usable sample size of 908. The analysis sample
was comprised of 463 (51 per cent) Boomers and 445 (49 per cent) Xers.

Of the respondents, 52 per cent were women and 48 per cent were men. Respondents reported
their ethnic status as Caucasian (87 per cent), African-American (5 per cent), Asian (5 per cent),
and other/prefer not to say (3 per cent). The majority of the respondents were married (65 per
cent) or living with a partner (9 per cent). Slightly over half of the sample (51 per cent) had at
least one child living at home. The educational level of the respondents varied: 15 per cent were
high school graduates, 65 per cent attended some college or graduated from college, and 18 per
cent had completed some graduate work or held a postgraduate degree. Respondents worked in a
wide variety of industries ranging from education (11 per cent), healthcare (9 per cent), retail (9
per cent), manufacturing (8 per cent), information technology (7 per cent), banking/finance (6
per cent), architecture/construction (5 per cent), government (4 per cent), transportation (4 per
cent), armed forces (2 per cent), leisure/tourism (2 per cent) and other (33 per cent). The
respondents were distributed evenly across the geographic regions (Northeast, South, Midwest,
and West) of the USA.

Measures

Generation. Individuals born between 1965 and 1983 were classified as Xers (coded as 1) and
those born between 1946 and 1964 were classified as Boomers (coded as 2).

Authenticity, balance, and challenge. The three parameters of the KCM were measured using a
15-item instrument developed for this study (see Appendix for scale items). Using a five-point
scale ranging from 1 “This does not describe me at all” to 5 “This describes me very well”,
individuals responded to five items per parameter. Coefficient alphas for the authenticity,
balance, and challenge scales were 0.76, 0.81, and 0.84 respectively.

Control variables

In order to determine if differences found were based on generational membership or other

individual difference variables, we controlled for factors (e.g. gender, education) that may
influence the three career parameters. For instance, previous research (e.g. Mainiero and
Sullivan, 2006) reported gender differences and differences due to non-work responsibilities in
individuals' preferences for authenticity, balance and challenge:

• Gender. Men were coded as 1 and women were coded as 2.

• Children. Individuals who did not have children living at home were coded with a 1, and
those who had children living at home were coded with a 2.
• Marital status. Individuals who were single, separated, divorced, or widowed were coded
as 1, and individuals who were married or living with a partner were coded as 2.
• Education. Respondents indicated their educational level on a scale ranging from 1
(grade school or less) to 4 (some college) to 8 (postgraduate degree).
 • Income. Respondents indicated their annual household income before taxes on a scale
ranging from 1 (less than $25,000) to 8 ($150,000 or more).

Results

Table I contains the correlations, means, and standard deviations of the study variables.
Generational membership was significantly correlated with both authenticity (r=−0.09) and
balance (r=−0.14) in the hypothesized direction providing initial support for H1 and H2 that Xers
would report higher needs for authenticity and balance than Boomers. However, generational
membership was not related to challenge in the correlation matrix. T-tests were also conducted to
examine potential differences between Xers and Boomers. The t-tests for authenticity and
balance were both significant at the p<0.01 level. For authenticity, M=3.42 for Xers and 3.25 for
Boomers; and for balance, M=3.44 for Xers and 3.18 for Boomers. The means for challenge
between Xers (M=3.36) and Boomers (M=3.25) were not significantly different.

To perform a more stringent test of our hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression was
performed with the control variables entered as the first block, and generational membership
entered as the second block. The results are shown in Table II. In support of H1, Xers reported a
greater desire for authenticity than Boomers (β=−0.07, p<0.05). H2 was also supported, in that
Xers reported a higher need for balance than Boomers (β=−0.09, p<0.01). However, contrary to
H3, Boomers did not report a greater desire for challenge than Xers.

An examination of the control variables provided additional clarification as to factors associated

with desires for authenticity, balance, and challenge. Women and those with higher education
reported greater needs for authenticity. Higher needs for balance were reported by those who had
children living at home, as well as by those who were married or living with a partner. Finally,
those with higher levels of education and income reported greater desires for challenge.

Discussion

Despite the increased generational diversity in the workplace and increasing questions from
organizational leaders about how to strategically manage these valuable resources, there is little
consensus among organizational scholars as to whether there are significant differences between
Boomers and Xers. Moreover, while scholars in other fields have studied generational
differences for decades, relatively speaking, organizational scholars have just begun to examine
generational differences in workplace attitudes and behaviors. This study was completed in an
effort to shed additional light on this issue by examining whether there are generational
differences in the important career needs of authenticity, balance, and challenge.

Using the KCM as a theory base, this study examined potential generational differences in three
work attitudes. As predicted by H1, Xers did have a significantly higher desire for authenticity
than Boomers. Although this finding is in contrast to the research of Smola and Sutton (2002)
which found no generational differences on a number of other work values (e.g. being of service
to others), it does support some research which suggests that Xers are more focused on obtaining
a job that they enjoy and allows them to express their personal values (see Callanan and
Greenhaus, 2008; McDonald and Hite, 2008). It is also consistent with Westerman and
Yamamura's (2007) findings that when Xers (and Yers) reported a good fit between their goals
and organizational goals, they were significantly more likely to intend to remain with the firm
and were more satisfied.

As predicted, Xers did have a significantly higher desire for balance than Boomers. Xers,
perhaps because they were the latchkey children of dual career or divorced parents, may wish to
obtain a better balance between their work and non-work lives for themselves and for the sake of
others (e.g. children, elderly relatives in their care, friends). As suggested by prior research
(Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2008; Smola and Sutton, 2002) it seems while
Boomers live to work, Xers work to live. However, in contrast to the findings for authenticity
and balance, no significant generational differences were found regarding the desire for
challenge. It seems that regardless of generation, individuals want challenging work. While the
literature on generational characteristics and research on the protean career suggests that Xers are
motivated more by factors like challenging work whereas Boomers are motivated more by
money and status, our findings did not support such a difference. Perhaps other factors (e.g.
personality, growth need strength) have more influence on needs for challenge than generational
membership and should be the subject of further research.

Limitations of the study and directions for future research

Although this study sheds additional light on generational differences in career needs, it is not
without its limitations. First, while a number of disciplines have studied generational
characteristics for over 50 years (see Alwin and McCammon, 2007; Biggs, 2007), there has been
no agreement among scholars about which birth years should be used to classify individuals into
generations. As noted by Smola and Sutton (2002), published research has varied greatly in what
birth years have been used (e.g. Boomers beginning anywhere from 1940 to 1946 and ending
anywhere between 1960 to 1964). Additionally, questions have been raised if individuals born on
the cusp of two generations can be accurately described the same way as individuals whose
birthdates clearly fall within assigned ranges (Alwin and McCammon, 2007). This lack of
agreement on the classification of generations makes comparisons of findings across different
studies problematic, hampers the advancement of this line of research, and may help explain the
lack of consensus in research findings. Scholars should consider alternative methods of
determining generational membership so there is consistency in classifications across studies.
For example, in addition to the use of age, scholars could ask individuals to identify the key
historical events from their youth that had a lasting impact on their lives. Such a method may be
especially useful in classifying individuals on the cusp between generations.

Second, like most of the research in the organizational sciences, this study is limited by the use
of a single survey measurement and a cross-sectional design. Even though the presence of
verifiable demographic variables makes the use of a single self-report survey less of a concern
(Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), we still join other scholars in calling
for the increased use of multi-method, longitudinal research designs to study career outcomes
(e.g. Sullivan, 1999). The use of longitudinal designs is especially critical when studying
generation differences because age rather than generation may be a major factor influencing
these results. If we had employed a research design whereby data were collected at multiple
times over the life span of individuals, we would have been better able to account for within
person changes that were due to the aging process in addition to between person differences due
to generational membership. The future use of such designs would enable scholars to determine
within person changes over time, determine whether other factors such as career stage and the
maturation process have more influence on workplace attitudes and behaviors than generational
classification, and provide a more complete understanding of this complex phenomenon so that a
consensus among scholars about the potential impact of generational differences can be reached.

Third, although the overall regression models for authenticity and balance were statistically
significant, it should be noted that the unique change in R 2 accounted for by generational
membership was small. While our use of a large national sample is a strength of the study, it also
gives us the power to detect even relatively small differences. In practice, it may be that the
importance of generational membership is overshadowed by other potential individual
differences (e.g. personality traits). Future research is needed to determine whether generational
differences have practical as well as statistical significance when examining individuals' needs
for authenticity and balance.

Implications for practice

Recently there have been calls for more study of generational differences in organizations (e.g.
Callanan and Greenhaus, 2008). Specifically, questions have been asked including:

• How can we best manage (Eisner, 2005), communicate (Reynolds et al., 2008), and train
(Proserpio and Gioia, 2007) employees of different generations?
• How can we assist members of older generations to best transfer knowledge to the
younger generations of workers (Carraher et al., 2008; Kapp, 2007)?
• How can organizations most effectively use generational differences for strategic
advantage (Gorman et al., 2004)?

While organizational researchers have begun to study generational differences in the workplace,
much more study is needed in order to reach a consensus about these differences so that
research-based recommendations can be offered to managers.

Our findings offer important insights for the management of workforces composed of members
from different generations. First, because many practitioners are getting their information from
popular press books and seminars on managing “clashing” generations, scholars should caution
managers not to readily accept sweeping generalities about generational differences without
considering both possible similarities among the generations as well as the impact of individual
differences. This is especially important when discussing negative perceptions of specific
generations which are not empirically supported. For example, despite the belief that Xers are
slackers, we found no significant differences in the desire for challenge between Boomers and
Xers. Also, because previous research has reported that implementation of employee initiatives
(such as those to enhance balance) and use of supportive leadership have been shown to
positively impact organizational outcomes (Luthans and Youssef, 2002; Muse et al., 2008;
Ozcelik et al., 2008), we suggest that organizations consider instituting such initiatives especially
given the growing number of Xers in the workplace who may desire greater balance than
previous generations of workers. Employees should not be penalized with reduced challenge for
participating in such workplace programs. As this study found, challenging work is important to
individuals regardless of their generation.

Second, given our finding that Xers were significantly more likely than Boomers to have a
higher need for authenticity, managers should consider how to initiate or enhance organizational
programs that allow employees, especially Xers, to find a good fit between their values and the
organizations' values. For instance, selection programs could make use of realistic job previews
(RJPs) (Buckley et al., 2002; Wanous, 1991) and other pre-selection procedures (Buckley et al.,
1998) in order to provide a clear picture of the organization's mission and goals to prospective
employees. Using the information gleaned from the RJP, an individual could determine if his/her
personal values are in alignment with the values of the organization. Organizations could also
consider the increased use of employee benefits, such as time off or sabbaticals, so that Xers
could choose to work on community or other projects (e.g. environmental issues, campaigns
against cancer) that have special meaning to them.

In conclusion, the workforce is increasingly composed of members of different generations who

may view career outcomes much differently. The work environment has already seen the impact
of this change in the form of increased worker mobility, with careers transforming from
traditional linear patterns to more multidirectional forms (Baruch, 2004). Executives and human
resource professionals must develop plans for the best management of this diverse labor force in
order to recruit and retain the highest quality workers. These employment strategies are even
more important as the gap between the demand for highly skilled workers and supply of these
workers grows, especially in industries (e.g. health care) which are already facing labor shortages
(Carraher et al., 2005, 2006; Ellwood, 2003; Grossman, R.J., 2005). Better understanding of the
differences and similarities among the various generations in today's workforce can help
organizational leaders make important decisions about human resource policies and practices.

Table ICorrelations, means, and standard deviations of study variables

Table IIRegression analyses

Notes

1. Copyright 2008, Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero. Please contact Sherry Sullivan
(ssulliv@bgsu.edu) for permission to use these scales.

References

Alwin, D.F., McCammon, R.J. (2007), "Rethinking generations", Research in Human

Development, Vol. 4 No.3-4, pp.219-37.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Baruch, Y. (2004), "Transforming careers from linear to multidirectional career paths:

organizational and individual perspectives", Career Development International, Vol. 9 No.1,
pp.58-73.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Silva, C.L., Weimer, D.L. (2003), "The advent
of internet surveys for political research: a comparison of telephone and internet samples",
Political Analysis, Vol. 11 No.1, pp.1-22.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Beutell, N.J., Wittig-Berman, U. (2008), "Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for
generation X, baby boomers, and matures: generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction
outcomes", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No.5, pp.507-23.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Biggs, S. (2007), "Thinking about generations: conceptual positions and policy implications",
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63 No.4, pp.695-711.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Broadbridge, A.M., Maxwell, G.A., Ogden, S.M. (2007), "Experiences, perceptions and
expectations of retail employment for generation Y", Career Development International, Vol. 12
No.6, pp.523-44.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Buckley, M., Fedor, D., Veres, J., Wiese, D., Carraher, S. (1998), "Investigating newcomer
expectations and job-related outcomes", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No.3, pp.452-
61.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Buckley, M., Mobbs, T., Mendoza, J., Novicevic, M., Carraher, S., Beu, D. (2002),
"Implementing realistic job previews and expectation lowering procedures: a field experiment",
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No.2, pp.263-78.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Cabrera, E.F. (2007), "Opting out and opting in: understanding the complexities of women's
career transitions", Career Development International, Vol. 12 No.3, pp.218-37.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Cabrera, E.F. (in press), "Protean organizations: reshaping work and careers to retain female
talent", Career Development International, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Callanan, G.A., Greenhaus, J.H. (2008), "The baby boom generation and career management: a
call to action", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No.1, pp.70-85.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S.E., Carraher, S.C. (2005), "An examination of the stress experienced
by entrepreneurial expatriate health care professionals working in Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, South Africa, and Zambia", International Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No.1, pp.45-65.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S.E., Crocitto, M.M. (2008), "Mentoring across global boundaries: an
empirical examination of home- and host-country mentors on expatriate career outcomes",
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No.8, pp.1310-26.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Carraher, S.M., Parnell, J.A., Carraher, S.C., Carraher, C.E., Sullivan, S.E. (2006), "Customer
service, entrepreneurial orientation, and performance: a study in health care organizations in
Hong Kong, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the USA", Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.33-48.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Crampton, S.M., Wagner, J.A. III (1994), "Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational

research: an investigation of prevalence and effect", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79
No.1, pp.67-76.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Davis, J.B., Pawlowski, S.D., Houston, A. (2006), "Work commitments of baby boomers and
gen-xers in the IT profession: generational differences or myth?", Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Vol. 46 No.3, pp.43-9.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Eisner, S.P. (2005), "Managing generation Y", SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 70
No.4, pp.4-15.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Ellwood, D. (2003), “Growing faster together or grow slowly apart”, available at:
www.aspeninstitute.org (accessed 17 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Erickson, T. (2005), "(2005) The reasons why gen xers are unhappy at work", BusinessWeek
Online, (accessed 15 June 2008), No.15 May, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Feyerherm, A., Vick, Y.H. (2005), "Generation X women in high technology: overcoming
gender and generational challenges to succeed in the corporate environment", Career
Development International, Vol. 10 No.3, pp.216-27.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Fisher, A., Bonamici, K. (2006), "Have you outgrown your job? a generation of younger workers
can't get ahead because the boomers above them won't budge", Fortune, Vol. 154 No.4, pp.46-
56.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gentry, W.A., Griggs, T.L., Deal, J.J., Mondore, S.P. (2009), "Generational differences in
attitudes, beliefs, and preferences about development and learning at work", in Baugh, S.G.,
Sullivan, S.E. (Eds),Research in Careers, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp.51-73.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Godshalk, V.M., Noble, A.M., Line, C. (2007), “High achieving women: an exploratory study of
the differences between kaleidoscope career types”, paper presented at the National Academy of
Management meeting, Philadelphia, PA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gorman, P., Nelson, T., Glassman, A. (2004), "The millennial generation: a strategic
opportunity", Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12 No.3, pp.255-70.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., John, O.P. (2004), "Should we trust web-based studies?
A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires", American
Psychologist, Vol. 59 No.2, pp.93-104.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gravett, L., Throckmorton, R. (2007), Bridging the Generation Gap: How to get Radio Babies,
Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers to Work Together and Achieve More, Career Press, New
York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Grossman, L. (2005), "Grow up? Not so fast", Time, Vol. 165 No.4, pp.42-54.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Grossman, R.J. (2005), “The truth about the coming labor shortage”, available at: www.shrm.org
(accessed 17 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gursoy, D., Maier, T., Chi, C.G. (2008), "Generational differences: an examination of work
values and generation gaps in the hospitality workforce", International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27 No.3, pp.448-58.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hall, D.T. (1976), Careers in Organizations, Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hall, D.T. (1996), "Long live the career", in Hall, D.T. (Eds),The Career Is Dead – Long Live
the Career, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp.1-12.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hall, D.T. (2004), "The protean career: a quarter-century journey", Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 65 No.1, pp.1-13.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hankin, H. (2004), The New Workforce, AMACOM, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hicks, R., Hicks, K. (1999), Boomers, Xers, and Other Strangers, Tyndale House, Wheaton, IL, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Johnson, T. (2007a), “Younger boss, older employee: get along on the job”, 9 July, available at:
ABC News.com (accessed 16 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Johnson, T. (2007b), “Generation gap creates office tension”, 4 April, available at: ABC
News.com (accessed 16 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Jovic, E., Wallace, J.E., Lemaire, J. (2006), “The generation and gender shifts in medicine: an
exploratory survey of internal medicine physicians”, BMC Health Services Research, available
at: www.biomedicalcentral.com (accessed 16 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Jurkiewicz, C.L., Brown, R.G. (1998), "Gen Xers vs boomers vs matures: generational
comparisons of public employee motivation", Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol.
18 No.4, pp.18-37.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Kapp, K.M. (2007), "Tools and techniques for transferring know-how from boomers to gamers",
Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 26 No.5, pp.22-37.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Karp, H., Fuller, C., Sirias, D. (2002), Bridging the Boomer Xer Gap, Davies-Black, Palo Alto,
CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), "Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management",

Health Care Manager, Vol. 19 No.1, pp.65-76.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Lancaster, L.C., Stillman, D. (2002), When Generations Collide: Who They Are, Why They
Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, HarperBusiness, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Li, H., Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Silva, C.L., Weimer, L. (2004),
"Telephone versus internet samples for a national advisory referendum: are the underlying stated
preferences the same?", Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 11 No.3, pp.173-6.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. (2002), "Investing in people for competitive advantage",
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No.2, pp.143-60.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

McDonald, K.S., Hite, L.M. (2008), "The next generation of career success: implications for
HRD", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No.1, pp.86-103.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Mainiero, L.A., Sullivan, S.E. (2005), "Kaleidoscope careers: an alternative explanation for the
opt-out generation", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No.1, pp.106-23.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Mainiero, L.A., Sullivan, S.E. (2006), The Opt-Out Revolt: How People Are Creating
Kaleidoscope Careers outside of Companies, Davies-Black, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Marston, C. (2007), Motivating the “What's in It for Me?” Workforce: Manage across the
Generational Divide and Increase Profits, Wiley, New York, NY, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Muse, L., Harris, S.G., Giles, W., Feild, H. (2008), "Work-life benefits and positive
organizational behavior: is there a connection?", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29
No.2, pp.171-92.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Ozcelik, H., Langton, N., Alrich, H. (2008), "Doing well and doing good: the relationship
between leadership practices that facilitate a positive work climate and organization
performance", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No.2, pp.186-203.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W. (1986), "Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects", Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.531-44.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Proserpio, L., Gioia, D.A. (2007), "Teaching the virtual generation", Academy of Management
Learning & Education, Vol. 6 No.1, pp.69-80.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Reynolds, L., Bush, E.C., Geist, R. (2008), "The Gen Y imperative", Communication World,
Vol. 25 No.3, pp.19-22.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Simon, E. (2007), "China's me generation", Time, Vol. 170 No.1, pp.32-7.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Sirias, D., Karp, H.B., Brotherton, T. (2007), "Comparing the levels of

individualism/collectivism between baby boomers and Generation X: implications for
teamwork", Managerial Research News, Vol. 30 No.10, pp.749-61.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Salkowitz, R. (2008), Generation Blend: Managing across the Technology Age Gap, Wiley,
New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Smith-Ruig, T. (2009), "Mapping the career journey of accountants in Australia", in Baugh,
S.G., Sullivan, S.E. (Eds),Research in Careers, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC,
pp.163-96.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Smola, K.W., Sutton, C.D. (2002), "Generational differences: revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No.4, pp.363-82.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Society for Human Resource Management (2004), Generational Differences Survey Report,
SHRM, Alexandria, VA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), "The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda", Journal
of Management, Vol. 25 No.3, pp.457-84.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Sullivan, S.E., Forret, M.L., Mainiero, L.A., Terjesen, S. (2007), "What motivates entrepreneurs?
An exploratory study of the kaleidoscope career model and entrepreneurship", Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.4-19.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., Freeman, C. (2007), "Attracting Generation Y graduates:

organizational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences", Career Development
International, Vol. 12 No.6, pp.504-22.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), Current Population Survey for 2007, available at:
www.bls.gov (accessed 16 June 2008), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Wanous, J.P. (1991), Organizational Entry, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Westerman, J.W., Yamamura, J.H. (2007), "Generational preferences for work environment fit:
effects and employee outcomes", Career Development International, Vol. 12 No.2, pp.150-61.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Zemke, R., Raines, C., Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, AMACOM, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Appendix. Authenticity, balance, and challenge scales [1]

Authenticity

• I hope to find a greater purpose to my life that suits who I am.

• I hunger for greater spiritual growth in my life.
• I have discovered that crises in life offer perspectives in ways that daily living does not.
• If I could follow my dream right now, I would.
• I want to have an impact and leave my signature on what I accomplish in life.

Balance

• If necessary, I would give up my work to settle problematic family issues or concerns.

• I constantly arrange my work around my family needs.
• My work is meaningless if I cannot take the time to be with my family.
• Achieving balance between work and family is life's holy grail.
• Nothing matters more to me right now than balancing work with my family
responsibilities.

Challenge

• I continually look for new challenges in everything I do.

• I view setbacks not as “problems” to be overcome but as “challenges” that require
solutions.
• Added work responsibilities don't worry me.
• Most people would describe me as being very goal-directed.
• I thrive on work challenges and turn work problems into opportunities for change.

Response scale

• does not describe me at all.

• describes me somewhat.
• describes me often.
• describes me considerably.
• describes me very well.

About the authors

Sherry E. Sullivan (PhD, The Ohio State University) has served as Division Chair, Program
Chair, Historian, and Newsletter Editor for the Academy of Management's Career Division. She
is a Fellow of the Southern Management Association and has published in journals including:
 Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Management, Group
and Organization Management, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Academy of Management
Executive, and Journal of International Business Studies. She was named the 2008 Southwest
Academy of Management Distinguished Educator. She is co-author (with Lisa Mainiero) of The
Opt-Out Revolt: Why People Are Leaving Companies to Create Kaleidoscope Careers (Davies
Black, 2006) and co-editor (with Yehuda Baruch and Hazlon Schepmyer) of Winning Reviews: A
Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing (Palgrave, 2006). She is also the co-editor (with S.
Gayle Baugh) of the Research in Careers series (Information Age Publishing, 2009). She is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ssulliv@bgsu.edu

Monica L. Forret (PhD, University of Missouri) is a Full Professor at St Ambrose University and
is the Director of the Doctor of Business Administration Program. She has published numerous
articles in journals including the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Group & Organization
Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Career Development International, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Journal of Management Education, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, and Organizational Dynamics.
Her research interests are primarily in the areas of networking, mentoring, co-worker
relationships, job search processes, and career success. She has served on the Board of the
Careers Division of the Academy of Management, as the Human Resources/Careers Track Chair
of the Midwest Academy of Management, and is an Editorial Board Member for the Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies.

Shawn M. Carraher received his PhD from the University of Oklahoma and is the Brewczynski
Endowed Chair, Director of the Center for Emerging Technology & Entrepreneurial Studies,
Head of Entrepreneurial Studies, and Director of the Small Business Institute at Cameron
University. He currently serves as a Past President of the International Association of SBI
Directors, President of the Association for Entrepreneurship, Family Business, & Franchising,
and Division Chair elect of the Technology & Innovation Management Division of the Academy
of Management. With over 110 published articles and data collections in over 110 countries his
primary research interests involve an examination of cross-cultural differences in compensation
and selection within entrepreneurial organizations with a special focus on tourism and health
care. He has also completed three Fulbright trips.

Lisa A. Mainiero, PhD received her doctorate in organizational behavior from Yale University in
1983. Dr Mainiero's latest book, co-authored with Sherry E. Sullivan, The Opt-Out Revolt: Why
People Are Leaving Companies to Create Kaleidoscope Careers (Davies-Black Publishers,
2006) describes contemporary trends in the career landscape for women and for men. Dr
Mainiero has published several articles on executive women's careers, issues of power and
politics, and crisis management strategies in journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly,
the Academy of Management Review, the Journal of Management, the Academy of Management
Executive, and Organizational Dynamics. She currently is a Full Professor of Management at the
Charles F. Dolan School of Business at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut.

View publication stats